Abstract

The pre-Collor Brazil was an exemplar of Third World state capitalism. To undo the canopy of state interventionism, central planning, and a jungle of restrictive regulations, Collor’s administration had to inculcate Brazil with a new culture of antistatist but private market-based development. The success of his reforms meant a direct confrontation with the statist tradition which has spawned scores, if not hundreds, of interest groups, including powerful business enterprises, both public and private, an ingrained ideology of topdown development, and a strong dose of national aspirations that Brazil was destined to become the global player in the South Atlantic. The power of the state steered the growth of Brazil’s economy for decades. As the economy grew, the state grew. State power led the transition from the agrarian to the industrial phase in Brazil. The power of the state, as in Pombal’s Portugal and Colbert’s France, shortened Brazil’s rise from a backward economy to the world’s eighth largest industrial economy within three decades. The state held the absolute financial lever.2

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    Nigel Harris, The End of the Third World: Newly Industrializing Countries and the Decline of an Ideology (New York: Penguin Books, 1990), p. 148. Harris cites the example: Brazil, a backward economy, was able to “shake off the slump” in the 1930s, while the U.S. was not.Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    UNCTAD Trade and Development Report, 1993 (New York: UN, 1993), pp. iv-v.Google Scholar
  3. 7.
    Eul-Soo Pang, “Brazil and the United States,” in United States Policy in Latin America, ed. John D. Martz (Lincoln, NE, and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1995), pp. 144–83, esp. 144–50.Google Scholar
  4. 11.
    Antônio Carlos Pojo do Rêgo and João Paulo M. Peixoto, A política econômica das reformas administrativas no Brasil (Rio: Expressao e Cultura, 1998), p. 73.Google Scholar
  5. 12.
    Eul-Soo Pang and Laura Jarnagin, “Brazil’s Catatonic Lambada,” Current History (February 1991), pp. 73–5, 85–7.Google Scholar
  6. 13.
    Regis Bonelli, Gustavo B. Franco, and Winston Fritsch, “Macroeconomic Instability and Trade Performance in Brazil: Lessons from the 1980s to the 1990s,” Bangladesh Development Studies (June-September 1992), pp. 129–61.Google Scholar
  7. 16.
    Sebastian Edwards, “The United States and Foreign Competition in Latin America,” in The United States in the World Economy, ed. Martin Feldstein (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 9–75, esp., 41. Sam Laird and Alexander Yeats, “Nontariff Barriers of Developed Countries, 1966–1986,” Finance and Development (March 1989), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
  8. 18.
    Yongil Lim, “Comparing Brazil and Korea,” in Lessons in Development: a Comparative Study of Asia and Latin America, eds., Seiji Naya, Miguel Urrutia, Shelley Mark, and Alfredo Fuentes (San Francisco: IFCS, 1989), pp. 93–117, esp., 94–6.Google Scholar
  9. 19.
    Annibal V. Villela and Werner Baer, O setor privado nacional: Problemas e politico para seu fortalecimento (Rio: IPEA/INPES 1980), pp. 159–64.Google Scholar
  10. 20.
    FIESP [Brasil], Livre para crescer: Proposta para um Brasil moderno (Sao Paulo: FIESP, 1990), pp. 135–40, 145–52.Google Scholar
  11. 29.
    Scott McCartney, “Catching Up: Computer Sales Sizzle as Developing Nations Try to Shrink PC Gap,” Wall Street Journal (29 June 1995), Al.Google Scholar
  12. 31.
    World Bank, 1998 World Development Indicators (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1998), pp. 182–4.Google Scholar
  13. 33.
    Armando Castelar Pinheiro and Fdbio Giambiagi, “Brazilian Privatization in the 1990s,” World Development (May 1994), pp. 739–59, esp., 739–40, 749.Google Scholar
  14. 49.
    Joaquim de Carvalho, “Firn de caso,” Veja (7 August 1996), pp. 32–8.Google Scholar
  15. 50.
    Joaquim de Carvalho, “A conta e o conto,” Veja (19 March 1997), pp. 24–6.Google Scholar
  16. 51.
    Claudio Humberto Rosa e Silva, Mil dias de solideio: Collor bateu e levou (São Paulo: Geração Editora, 1993), pp. 45–50, 83–4, 96–7.Google Scholar
  17. 60.
    Lincoln Gordon, “Assessing Brazil’s Political Modernization,” Current History (February 1998), pp. 76–81.Google Scholar
  18. 65.
    Bolivar Lamounier, “Um é pouco, dois é born, tres é …” Exame (26 December 2001), pp. 10–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Eul-Soo Pang 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eul-Soo Pang
    • 1
  1. 1.Colorado School of MinesGoldenUSA

Personalised recommendations